Talk:Railway electrification/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unintelligible abbreviations

The abbreviations in "A brief table unintelligible (e.g. "Dbl km", "El km"). Some rather seem to be percent and not kilometers. An explanation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.151.171 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland not electrified?

Whomever compiled the map of Europe showing which countries were and were not electrified has been out of date since at least 1984. Ireland's DART (Dublin Suburban) system has been electrified with 1500V DC since its inception. Dublin also operates the Luas, an electrified light-rail system running on 750V DC.

70.105.210.214 (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic details

In Czech Republic both systems 3000V DC and 25kV AC are used, north part of Czech republic use 3kV DC, south part use 25kV AC. it was let say rule: red machine - 25kV AC, Green machine 3kV DS, Blue machine for both (switchable)

A good article, but....

I do not see any lists of external references. This may be a problem for people like myself, who are trying to research this topic and need some solid source material. Piercetp 03:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(sighing) You need something done around here you have to do it yourself! I found a decent link to add. Piercetp 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is about railway electrification. The sections on multisystem locomotives and battery electric rail vehicles are all very interesting, but not relevant to this page. I propose that they be deleted from this article and placed on another page (or placed on new pages of their own). --ALECTRIC451 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO this article should be about the technical stuff / diffrent systems. In places it appears to duplciate the work of other article such as List of current systems for electric rail traction, Railway electrification in Great Britain, Railroad electrification in the United States, Third rail and Overhead lines Pickle 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ALECTRIC451 has moved those sections to Railway electric traction Pickle 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo used in article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US-NortheastCatenary.jpg This photo really is not that visable. Can someone find a better one to use? Thanks... Piercetp 01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK then I see someone replaced it. Thanks. Piercetp 20:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Railway electric traction

It seems to me that everything in railway electric traction duplicates either this article on electric locomotive. Mangoe 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Railway electric traction is about the traction units that operate on a railway electrification system. A railway electrification system is the infrastructure that allow electric traction to operate. IMHO, they are quite different, and both merit separate articles. Any cross-over of content between the two should be avoided. ALECTRIC451 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A further point, an electric locomotive is a subset of railway electric traction, another being electric multiple units. The article railway electric traction is meant to pull together all the different forms of railway traction that uses electricity as the power source for propulsion. ALECTRIC451 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If any merging is needed then it should be between this article and Traction power network ALECTRIC451 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all the above should be here. Whence the electricity comes into the third rail (or catenary) and whither it goes, all belong in the various national sections of this article, or in two new worldwide technical sections. Jim.henderson 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Emissions

In countries where electricity comes primarily from non-fossil sources, such as Austria and France, electric trains also produce fewer carbon emissions than diesel trains.

Wouldn't there be fewer emissions anyway (ignoring the cost of installing the lines) because even fossil fuel power stations would be more efficient then the diesel-electric engine on the diesel train (even considering the transmission losses)? (obviously the difference won't be as much) Nil Einne 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If locomotives were constrained by emissions controls, probably not; there's no reason why a clean-running D-E or gas-turbine locomotive couldn't be more efficient than the combination of a remotely-located fossil fuel plant and the transmission losses. But locomotives aren't currently constrained by emissions controls, at least in the United States, so your argument (currently) holds up.

Atlant 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlant, not sure what you mean about locomotives not being constrained by emissions controls in the US - there are a ton of emissions controls which have caused huge changes in the industry recently (Tier I and Tier II emissions standards). See Emission standard and Tier_(emission_standard). I agree with Nil Einne's point that electric trains are still better for the environment even when the central power plant burns fossil fuels, but this isn't a design goal and it isn't really that important to this article. Jpp42 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

With diesel trains you have transmission losses, too (the fuel required to carry all the fuel with you). Add the fuel required to produce the electricity used by the train (even if we're not talking about diesel-electric anyway) and the quite considerable savings you can get from regenerative braking and e-trains *can* be a lot more efficient. Of course, if you electrify 1000km of track that sees one train a day then leakage will kill you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.52.35 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Multi-current locomotives

We should probably talk about the issue of multi-current locomotives. For instance, parts of the French train network are in 1500V DC, but more recent parts, including the high speed special-purpose TGV lines, are in 25 kV AC. This means all TGV trains, but also some regional trains (RER B, RER D for instance) are dual current. Trains going across borders may also need multi-current locomotives: for instance, TGV going to Germany or Switzerland have tri-current locomotives (1500V DC, 25 kV AC 50 Hz and the weird 16.6 Hz current used in Germany and neighbouring countries). SNCF TGV Thalys PBKA are 4-current. David.Monniaux 11:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like the perfect opportunity for you to be bold and improve the article!

Atlant 12:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because I don't know authoritatives sources about this. Presumably, some people have better knowledge, and access to better sources than I do. David.Monniaux 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

DC Overhead

The article should really have a section on the DC overhead systems, such as that pioneered by the LBSC in London, and also used on the Woodhead Line, as well as in Europe. I can add a little about this, but it will only be a start, and would still need expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now seen that it does mention the systems, but it is not completely clear that overhead is being talked about. Looks to me that it is assemed all electric systems are overhead unless otherwise noted! I'll clear that up myself. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Conductor rail electrification

That seems to be a separate article, quite pointlessly.--SilasW (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Future developments

The standard system today is 25kv AC which is converted to DC on the train and then converted again to variable frequency AC for the motors. The AC to DC conversion could be done in the substation and there would be some advantages to this, e.g. reduced exposure of train drivers to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone seen any information about the possibility of 25kv AC being replaced by 25kv DC? Biscuittin (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, I've added it (proposed 24 and 30 kv DC) David S. Lawyer 08:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

With DC power there is the inherent problem of electrolytic corrosion and deposition. HVDC would have an immense effect, metal pipes and poles in contact with the ground would just dissolve like a bar of sugar dropped in water. The 2x25kV AC traction system is very efficient nowadays, simple and maintenance-less. One doesn't even need to change-refill the cooling oil in the substations once a year, since modern ZBD transformers come with solid-cast synthetic resin filling.

In contrast, HVDC requires a lot of fancy power semiconductors and a big IT background to run, but railways like simpe things and try to confine high complexity to the line safety / signalling equipment, which is a separate discipline. Furthermore, DC is not usable in squirrel-cage traction motors, DC supply means contact brush type motors and that means frequent maintenance replacement due to friction wear. Thus the locomotive would need to convert HVDC onboard to 3-phase for carefree AC traction motors. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-worldwide view

What is the problem? Is it that the article does not deal adequately with Asia and Australasia? Biscuittin (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing

I have done some Copy-editing. Before I do any more I'd like some feedback on what is required. For example, would more headings be useful? Biscuittin (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did some rewording and copy-editing, but the clarity of content is the main problem here. I am not removing the copyedit tag, as I have been doing on other articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Korea

There seems to be an edit war going of over the use of Korea and ROK. This ceases as of now. As the country referred to is commonly known as South Korea, I've changed the flag template to South Korea, which displays the same flag as ROK. Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bad flag

Not a bad flag

South Korea is officially known by its constitutional name as the Republic of Korea. The "flag|Korea" template gives the incorrect flag used by the Joseon Dynasty from 1392 to 1897 and the Empire of Korea from 1897 to 1910. User:Bhtpbank is attempting to make a WP:POINT by reverting to an incorrect revision, without refuting factual points or making a proper argument (possibly Ad hominem or Irrelevant conclusion). Also, in this case, values do not refer to the entire Korean peninsula, so the use of "Korea" is redundant, as the given rail operator, Korail, does not hold jurisdiction within North Korea, nor do the values provided in the table account for the rail system within the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which is operated by Choson Cul Minzuzui Inmingonghoagug. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the two countries that form the Korean Peninsula are generally known as North Korea and South Korea. The Korail article makes it clear that the company operate in South Korea. If there are any electrified railway systems in North Korea they need to be dealt with by an additional entry in the table, not by adding incorrect info to an existing entry. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I made reversion as I saw no discussion on the talk page to substantiate the change made. I made the change once, which is hardly counts as making a WP:POINT. The argument for making a change is surely equal to that for reverting it. If no relevant argument was made for the change then I see no reason to provide one for a reversion. I call it "quid pro quo". The lambasting that I have received from User:benlisquare is out of proportion to my actions, and is talking up an "edit war" when one does not exist! Any half competent editor who knows how to read the history page could have seen this for true. User:Mjroots as a well known editor, my respect for you is greatly diminished. As for User:benlisquare, the over-reaction to my edit was uncalled for, and I now expect you to remove the WP:ATTACK that you placed on my talk page, and to replace it with an apology. As for User:Mjroots, you need to re-earn my respect. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I must add a further retort. The reason that I reverted the edit by User:benlisquare was for this edit summary "Replaced Empire of Korea flag (what the fuck) with Republic of Korea flag)"

that I considered inappropriate, not because I had any strong view on the flag symbol. This was made clear in my edit summary for the reversion. I await an apology from both User:benlisquare and User:Mjroots. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit was entirely justified in the edit summary, and so there was no need to involve the article talk page. My futher comment in the edit summary was based on my personal expression regarding the absurdity of the use of the Empire of Korea flag; as per the profanity article, mankind has created such words to express emotion. Also I find it entirely Un-Australian not to do so. Think about it; if I were to use the flag for the Confederate States of America or Nazi Germany in that table, would you consider that to be absolutely absurd? Your reversion was clearly an Ad hominem WP:POINT against my use of vocabulary; sure, if you disapprove of it, then may we talk, but a reversion like that is clearly off-shot here. You have made an Irrelevant conclusion regarding my use of words to inappropriately revert to incorrect information, an example of an informal fallacy. Rather than brewing up a WP:WIKIDRAMA, you should have a reflection of what you have done, and why I have responded as so. Although I do hope this is the end of all this; this will be the last and final explanation I will give. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it appears that there is plenty of WP:WIKILAWYERING going on after reading through various user talkpages; refer to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Alright now, I see that you are disapproving of my use of language, and I understand that you feel upset as a result of my actions and are reacting to what you see as an inappropriate comment that I have made in an edit summary; however, I have clearly made my intentions very clear in the edit summary regarding the correction of the error, which eliminates the argument that you were "unsure"; the answer now lies in that you reverted due to what I have said, in which you do not approve of. This is a de facto non-constructive edit, regardless of what I have done prior. And now, involving external admins and making various threats is simply formulating a WP:DRAMA, and is not a constructive way to resolve an issue. Feelings aside, shall we make our propositions with facts and facts only, so that we can move beyond all this? We are making such a big issue from tiny tiny things; we are all grown men, not children, and so may we please resolve this like grown men? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys... WP:MOSFLAG... --NE2 13:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Query about Characteristics of Electric Traction

Can anyone explain this statement, in particular the significance of the italicised words?

"Given sufficient traffic density electric trains produce fewer carbon emissions than diesel trains."

The article is flagged as needing copyedit so we can take it that the "fewer" needs changing to "less" (Fewer is for countable things, in this case perhaps Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon smut and so on. I imagine that the intention is to express that the quantity of C-nasties rather than their number is lower.)--SilasW (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Railway Electrification Statistics

some country have there area in million of km2 other have in thousand of km2. Most of the column have name not enough explanatory or/and without units of measurement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.134.216.2 (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are Electric Trains More Energy Efficient Than Diesel?

The answer is "in some cases yes and in other cases no". Thus I removed the statement: >In comparison with diesel-powered trains, electric trains are more energy efficient, and with proper energy production may have >smaller carbon dioxide footprint:

I believe that the Russians have done the most work on this question and have published a couple of books related to the topic during the Soviet era. One came to the conclusion that on average, diesel and electric were about equal in energy efficiency. I thought that it was wrong since it didn't consider regenerative braking. The other book doesn't make this type of comparison, but does have historical comparisons. The energy intensities (in kg of standard fuel per 10^4 gross tonne-km) was: 1960: 61.6 (elect.) 48.4 (diesel); for 1975: 37.4 vs. 49.8. This shows that the electric was significantly more efficient.

But there's a problem with such a conclusion since it fails to account for the energy used in constructing the electrification system. The energy it took to build it needs to be amortized over its useful life. As a very rough estimate, what I suggest looking at is the cost of hauling freight for both diesel and electric which includes all real costs including the costs of the capital investment in electrification and locomotives. I think that in general, if it pays to replace diesels with electric, then this electrification is likely to save energy. This book has charts and tables in it showing how the costs depend on the traffic, grades, and whether it's a one or two track line. With high traffic of over 12 million tons on a single track line, it usually pays to electrify. For a double track line the break even traffic is higher. It appears that in many case, just putting in a second track on a high density line will save a lot of energy (since trains no longer need to stop to pass opposing trains).

OK, here's another way to compare electrification to diesel. A diesel is of course a diesel-electric. It's like an electric locomotive, but the power generating plant is on-board instead of at a central power plant somewhere. So one question is: which power source is more efficient. In the US, power plants turn about 33% of fossil fuel heat energy into electric energy. After deducting for transmission losses, it's about 30%. Now the diesel engines in trains are about 40% efficient at full load and with generator efficiency at roughly 90% the energy supplied is at about 35% efficiency (vs. 30% for and electric locomotive). But locomotive often operate at partial power with lower efficiency. To alleviate this problem, locomotive units in a train that are not currently needed are sometimes shut down. This rough analysis indicates that neglecting regenerative braking and the embodied energy in the electrification investment, electric and diesel are about equal in energy efficiency.

What about regenerative braking? To make a fair comparison, one should assume that train operation will employ coasting instead of braking to save energy. Of course, at a certain point when the train is going slow, friction brakes are applied to bring the train to a final halt. Even electric trains should try to coast instead of regenerate because by costing 100% of the kinetic or potential energy is recovered (during the coasting phase). This is because in regeneration, there are energy losses in the generator, catenary, and motors of the locomotive receiving the energy. If you're lucky 70% of the energy might be recovered. On DC electrification, there may be no locomotive near enough to receive the power and it must be dumped. Thus regeneration is best for cases of long steep grades like descending from high mountain passes.

So one just can't make a blanket statement that electric traction is more energy efficient than diesel. It all depends, and what it depends on is a pretty complicated subject that hasn't been adequately researched.

It has been thoroughly researched and the overwhelming conclusion is that electric trains are more energy efficient than diesel trains. Your arguments are tenuous and have little or no basis in established fact. In the United Kingdom, the case for electification of the railways has been demonstrated to such an extent that a large programme of work has been authorised. A target of electrifying 10 single track kilometres per week for the next ten years has been quoted by Network Rail. The benefit to cost ratio for some schemes has been quoted as "infinite". The predicted instability and increase in the price of oil has made it a "no brainer". Diesel traction is simply to risky in terms of being totally dependent on fossil fuel. The ability to power an electric traction network from many sources of energy supply make it highly attractive. Diesel will have a role to play, but in time all the evidence points to them being superseded by electric trains. The arguments for electric vs diesel are practically the same as were used for steam vs diesel, and we all know how that ended. Bhtpbank (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

One MAJOR Detriment of Electrification is the sheer UGLINESS and tremendous cost of building and maintaining Overhead-Catenary systems, both of which this clearly Euro-Centric article almost fully ignores. Further there is a near total lack of discussion of transmission line losses, the impact of high-strength electro-magnetic fields (created by catenary and high-voltage/current transmission lines) on human tissues which is a heavily suspected carcinogenic source. Finally, while some countries, like Norway, create a high percentage of their power from hydro-electric sources, many create a high percentage of their power, used by their electrified rail systems, by fossil-fuel, especially now that Germany has shut down its nuclear plants due to an earthquake in Japan. BTW, Wind Generators are also eye-sores, not to mention serious hazards to navigation. So, PLEASE, let's re-write this article with a A LOT MORE even-handed treatment of the pros and cons versus diesel-electric. WFB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.249.169 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Classification edit wars

why to include the SU separately; one list is better. former SU is very predominantly 3kV DC, and i heard that 25kV AC is only used on newer, and such lines where higher power are needed. so high-power line approx. = high speed line, the two entries can be unified for a simpler look.

and even if they are kept at 2; i think the longer list should be the 1st and the one containing only SU the 2nd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa3-other (talk • contribs) 08:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Electrification Map corrections

The Isle of Mann is coloured for 25kv AC, in actuality it uses overhead 500 DC and 550v DC. WatcherZero (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-contact systems

Bombardier's PRIMOVE is a good catch, but it doesn't allow[] the use of a high-voltage, insulated, conductor rail. I'm not too sure from the reference if it is designed to be set up as a continuous or closely spaced (as per APS) system, or one that relies on ultracapacitors or batteries to bridge the gaps between power transfer points at scheduled stops, or some combination thereof.

If it isn't a continuous power transfer system, then I'd argue that it may not really belong in this article; it goes more with battery-electric locomotives. The counter argument is to posit that a non-continuous supply system which relies on railed vehicles to use energy storage to power themselves across the gaps is a valid railway electrification system. Tim PF (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Virtually identical to APS, induction loops only energised when a train is above, best seen in this image http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/image_and_media/products/BT-4088-PRIMOVE_Pickup_Coils.jpg The MITRAC capacitors are used as a buffer, smoothing out the power recieved continuously from below ground as well as regenerative braking energy. It says the typical energy supply for a 30-42m vehicle traveling at 50kmh on gradients of upto 6% is 270kw but the system could be configured to supply from 100-500kw. While it is continuously supplied in transit and at rest the brochure does imply that at peak performance it may require more energy than is supplied, running down the stores and requiring resting at a station to top up. WatcherZero (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Map

As for the map in this article, it disinformes rather than informes, the information on it is out of date, besidas I cannot find any decent legend: what does blue stand for? Where are ANY reliable sources for the fact represented on the map? It would be definitely better to chuck it away than to misinform, sorry to say, The policy "better this one than none" will not do in this case. Kicior99 (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Research and development

I'm not very happy about this section. It is unreferenced and it seems to be mostly Business speak. I particularly dislike the term "roadmap". Why have a roadmap in a railway article? Biscuittin (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Siemens or Charles Joseph Van Depoele

Siemens , Charles Joseph Van Depoele , someone else? Who is to be credited with this concept? The Wikipedia page for mr Van Depoele clearly indicates he is at the base of this. He is often cited in media as being the founder of this. Hoping for some definite clarification where further edits will be based on. If Mr Van Depoele is not to be credited for this I will edit his entries in wikipedia where he is presented as being the founder . Until someone presents an irrefutable source for either one or the other I propose allusions to "having been invented" an corresponding categories to be removed to prevent escalation. friendly regards, Phoenixxl (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia page for mr Van Depoele clearly indicates he is at the base of this."

WP is not WP:RS for other articles.

Secondly, Van Depoele, like Leo Baekeland, was working in the USA, not Belgium. If we have a category for Inventions by expatriate Belgians then his work might warrant inclusion, but neither this nor Bakelite are Belgian inventions. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that you've now removed the established categorization as German inventions, based on Siemens' work. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And please be so considerate as to not add it again until this is resolved.

The country they were working in is not the issue . If it has to be credited to the US then that will be that . Mr Van Depoele being at the base would clearly indicate Siemens wasn't. Phoenixxl (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am removing the "adminhelp" tag, as there is nothing here that an administrator is any more able to do than any other experienced editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Inner London third rail voltage

I notice a recent revert to my edit where the reverter claims that the whole inner London area uses a third rail voltage of 660 volts. I can find nothing that substantiates this extraordinary claim in an all encompassing form. Also I cannot think of a single technical or logical reason why this should be so. Network Rail's track diagrams show that those lines where network rail stock is shared with London Underground (LUL) stock are electrified at 660 volts, because LUL operates at 630 volts and a compromise is required - and connected lines also tend to be so for obvious reasons. The voltage was determined solely because it was the legacy standard voltage before Southern Region (as was) upgraded everything else to 750 volts. So in reality, it is not technically a compromise at all, merely that the systems were never converted from 660 volts.

The lines in question are the Wimbledon to Point Pleasant Junction line (Standard LUL 630 volt north of East Putney and 750 volt east and west of Point Pleasant); Gunnersbury to Richmond (Standard LUL 630 volt east via Turnham Green, but the line is 660 volt via North Acton but this is only a legacy because the original 'North London Line' was never converted to 750 volt, the intention being to convert to 25 kV AC - and it was partially so converted before being absorbed into the Overground network). Also the so called 'DC line' from Queens Park to Harrow and Wealdstone. This line is also 660 volt north to Watford Junction but only because LUL stock used to run all the way to Watford and there is intent to restore such services - indeed the fourth rail was never removed merely dropped onto the sleepers. The section south of Queens Park to Euston is also 660 volt because the antiquated stock that used to run on the line was rated at that voltage (the current class 378 stock are officially rated at 750 volts but Network Rail are unlikely to upgrade this short stretch when the majority of the line is constrained to 660 volts and the stock works satisfactorily from that voltage). The stock on the line is the dual voltage Class 378/2 which can also work from 25 kV AC overhead. This is solely to provide additional flexibility and allows the 'DC line' trains to occupy platforms other than the only two that are equipped with a third rail at Euston. The 25 kV capability is not used while the service operates normally.

All other 'inner London' lines are 750 volt including lines into Waterloo, Victoria, Charring Cross, all other new and converted 'Overground' lines and most notably, the third rail that runs through the Snow Hill Tunnel to Farringdon which, as it runs under the City, is as 'Inner London' as it is possible to get. The Class 378 'Capitalstar' trains that run the overground network are all rated at 750 volts (for third rail operation), but work satisfactorily from 660 volts with some reduction in acceleration and top speed. 86.169.32.152 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I know the 'inner london' system better than most. I have designed electrification systems for my entire career. I have an "internal" Network Rail map that shows the extent of the 660V area, and it stretches almost to Gilligham (Kent) and down to Guildford. I also know that the former London Midland dc line (Euston-Watford & North London Line) are actually 650V systems. I have worked on electrification in the UK for over 20 year, so please spare me your thoughts ... I know what I am talking about, and I know that you do not. Bhtpbank (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to know the inner London system well enough to know that 'London' is spelt with a captal letter. It's always the way that someone who claims something at variance with what mosy people believe just happens to either work in or used to work in the area concerned. Quite apart from the fact that I don't believe you, I am perfectly entitled to share my knowledge and thoughts wherever I chose throughout Wikipedia. Regardless, the use of 'internal' documentation not available to the general public or knowledge obtained in the course of one's career is original research. Material based on original research is not permitted in Wikipedia. Material must be based on third party sources that can easily be independently verified. Your internal map and 'career' obtained 'knowledge' is neither 'third party' nor can be verified. The question remains: what is the technical or logical advantage in maintaining an inner London network with a lower voltage than the rest of the network? If there are 650 volt systems about, the difference between them and a 660 volt system is not worth getting excited about. If you were to place a voltmeter across the track, I doubt either system would read the rated voltage, and one could even read as though it is the other. They could just as easily be described as nominally 600 volt, which by no coincidence is exactly what LUL describe them as (the Bakerloo and District stock collector shoe beams are even marked "Danger 600 volts" to remind staff that they are not at the normal +420 volts). 86.169.32.152 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bhtpbank, try not to be so condescending and patronising, especially given that 86.169.32.152 is much more correct than you are. You don't seem to know the inner London area as well as you claim. How old is this map of yours showing the 660 volt area? If you had made your claim 15 years ago, it would have been substantially right. But in recent years Network Rail have been busy replacing all the electrical equipment in the sub stations all over the old Southern Region network (as was). I believe they were replacing old mercury arc rectifiers with solid state units to save on the high maintenance costs of the former (and benefit from the greater efficiency as well). In carrying out this upgrade, they have replaced the old units with equipment that supplies the now standard third rail voltage of 750 volts because, as noted, there is no technical reason not to do so (and plenty of good reasons not to have a dual voltage network). I am not in a position to comment how complete other areas are (but I believe fairly complete if not completely complete), but I can tell you that whole South West Trains area is now 750 volts which includes one of the lines that you claim is 660 volts (Waterloo to Guildford). This line has had a complete refit with brand new transformers and rectifiers, the new transformers being fully visible to the passing passengers (often with the obligatory graffiti). I can only assume that the new solid state rectifiers occupy but a very small corner of the original rectifier buildings.

The Class 444 and 450 "Desiro" trains that now operate this line are only type approved for operation on 750 volts while in passenger service (a concession allows operation over the 660 volt Wimbledon to East Putney section for stock movements but only with empty stock and with a speed limit of 30 mph). –LiveRail < Talk > —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

AC -v- DC in third rail systems

Not content with demonstrating his total lack of knowledge on the (non existent) extent of 660 volt systems throughout the former southern region, Bhtpbank now goes on to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of elementary electrical engineering. He has reverted ([1]) a fully cited statement in the article that DC allows 41% more power than AC on third rail systems with this nugget of an edit summary:

"Voltage is not the same as power. DC system has greater losses, therefore an AC system is always more efficient for power delivery. Thats why high speed lines use AC!"

The first sentence is correct, but that's as far as it goes. The rest is pure nonsense. For a start AC systems have the greater losses because they suffer from capacitive and inductive losses which DC systems do not have. The use of AC with overhead delivery systems is not because of lower losses (because for the same voltage the losses are higher). Where overhead systems use AC, it is solely because AC permits the use of high voltages for delivery of the power. As the voltage rises, the current falls for the same power. The lower current means lower resistive losses which means that the sub stations can be positioned further apart. This information is in the article had you bothered to read it. With such systems, the capacitive losses increase with voltage (and such losses can often be heard on damp days). However, the inductive and resistive losses fall more than offsetting the loss, at least over the distances encountered for railway traction.

However, this is irrelevant as the point at issue was not about overhead systems but third rail systems. On these system, the voltage is inherently limited by safety considerations to ~1200 volts. The voltage at which a particular system can be operated is a function of the limiting voltage of the insulation, less a safety margin. On such a system, the voltage that can be used is determined by the steady state DC voltage or the 'peak' AC voltage. the RMS value of an AC voltage is one divided by the square root of 2 times the peak voltage or:

V_R.M.S. = 0.707 * V_peak

The upshot is that if you were to operate a third rail system at (say) 1000 volts DC, the same insulation would only allow operation at 707 volts AC. The conductor rail and cabling is only able to conduct the same R.M.S. AC current as steady state DC for the same heating effect (let's say 10,000 Amps purely by way of example). At this voltage capacitive loses are negligible and inductive losses do not contribute to heating, though they do provide a small volt drop. On the DC system, the power is:

1000 V * 10,000 A = 1 MW

For the AC system:

707 V * 10,000 A = 707 kW

1 MW / 707 kW = 1.414 - therefore DC system has 41 % greater power QED.

In practice, the volt drop provided by the inductive loses makes the power reduction from the use of AC even greater as such power loss is proportional to the square of the volt drop. All of this can be found in any half decent electrical engineering text book. –LiveRail < Talk > —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The figure of 41% also manages to completely ignore the increased losses due to the skin effect. In a DC system, the current flows through the entire cross section of the conductor rail. However in a 50 Hz AC system using a normal steel conductor rail, the current only flows in 0.002 millimetres of rail closest to the surface. This means that the resistive losses are substantially greater. Using an aluminium rail improves matters, but the AC current would still only flow in the 0.3 millimetres closest to the surface. Aluminium does have a lower resistivity than steel, but a DC current would still occupy the whole cross section. 86.169.32.152 (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get your figures for the depth of the skin effect from? I believe you have exagerated the effect because the information that I can find ([2] Table 20.1 on page 385) suggests a figure of 0.65 mm at 60 Hz for iron (is steel that different) so for 50 Hz, it will be a little more (I would guess 0.75 mm?). Copper is usually accepted as 8.5 mm at 50 Hz, so aluminium being a little less conductive may be 10 mm. It's still a valid observation though as the usual dimensions of a third rail would make the skin effect significant. In a steel rail, the resistance to 50 Hz AC could easily be around ten times greater than for DC which would mean that around ten times as many sub stations would be required to maintain the same voltage limits. I B Wright (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I got them from the graph in the article skin effect. The graph itself can be found here here. Ah! Just noticed: the X-axis is in kilohertz not hertz. I stand corrected. –LiveRail < Talk > —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

From what you have been saying, I thought you were an authority on "skin effect"?? You seriously believed that the only 50 Hz current that would flow in a typical section of steel rail was in the 0.002 millimetres of rail closest to the surface?? Now, 0.002 mm is the same as 2 μm (two microns). A typical human hair is around 100 μm thick. So you thought that on a 50 Hz AC railway that the current flows in a layer about 1/50th of the thickness of a human hair?? Seriously!!

So comprehension as well as basic electrical engineering is not your strong suit. If you read the post that you just responded to, and at least made some attempt to understand it, you just might discover that I conceeded that I misinterpreted the information over at skin effect and conceeded that I B Wright was more correct than I was in the depth of the skin effect. However, the discussion below suggests that he has seriously underestimated the number of sub stations required - and even I was surprised. –LiveRail < Talk >

Now let's try to get some sense into the discussion. Why do you think that high-speed high-power railway electrification systems (like the French TGV lines) all use AC power?? From your point of view, they should be DC, because AC systems are less efficient? So please explain why everyone else is wrong, and why they should be using DC instead! Bhtpbank (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

He was not saying any of that. He was saying only that a given set of conductors and insulators can deliver more power via DC than AC, if both are run close to their breakdown voltage (which never happens), due to the difference in DC voltage vs. AC RMS. But that does not make the DC system more efficient! And other factors do combine to make AC a better choice (and more efficient, net) for most if not all railway systems, and for most power distribution for that matter. If maximum power capability at breakdown voltage was the deciding factor in choice of AC vs. DC, then you'd have a valid point. But it isn't, so you don't. Jeh (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am afriad Jeh that that was the point being made. Kindly keep out of discussions unless you are not [sic] fully conversant with the subject matter. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, talk pages are open to all, I will enter discussions as I please. Anyway, you falsely claimed that "DC system has greater losses", you misrepresented LiveRail's position as claiming that the DC system is more efficient, and in that you grossly misused the term "efficiency"... and you accuse me of not being fully conversant with the subject matter?! Jeh (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you attempting to incorrectly interpret my posts. My post never touched on the subject of AC systems using a completely different voltage to DC systems. It was entirely confined to an AC systems using a like voltage to a DC system as has most of this discussion. You have continually demonstrated a failure to grasp the basics of electrical engineering. Do you serously still believe that the loses on a 750 volt DC system are greater than on a 750 volt AC system (which is what you claimed). Readers may be interested to see the post Bhtpbank made on my own talk page where he regards the discussion on skin effect as living in a fantasy world (User talk:LiveRail). No one anywhere has even suggested that high voltage overhead AC systems (such as the TGV that you introduced) would be better if operated from DC which you have also claimed they have. It might be useful if Bhtpbank took his own advice and refrained from discussion on a subject that he completely fails to have any knowledge of and that he cannot comprehend what others are telling him anyway. –LiveRail < Talk >

The only person who has introduced high voltage overhead wire systems into the discussion is yourself. Everyone else is talking about a third rail system where the use of high voltages is impractical, largely for safety reasons. It has already been pointed out that overhead high voltage systems are completely irrelevant to this discussion. I B Wright (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DC and AC losses

I saw the point yesterday on AC loses and, more importantly, on the skin effect. It occurred to me that the skin effect was going to have a very significant effect on the operation of a third rail system on AC because the conductor rail (and return rail) are made from a relatively poor conductor and are magnetic. The skin depth will therefore be small compared to the rail geometry. I therefore decided to fire up my copy of Mathcad and calculate the extent of the AC losses. I also decided to share my findings with you.

Assumptions

To do this, I have to make a few assumptions which I shall declare here. For the practical implications, I have assumed a steel third rail operated at 750 volts, and a current draw of 5000 Amps. I do not know the real current draw of a train, but the article hints at possibly 6800 amps, so I rounded it to a convenient value. If anyone does know the real current draw, then the numbers can be scaled accordingly. From information that I found on line, I was able to determine the dimensions of the rails concerned. The geometry is such that the skin depth as very small compared with the rail size and therefore the skins on opposite sides come nowhere near each other. I can therefore substitute square section rails with minimal impact on accuracy. A square section rail of 90 millimetres on each side has close to the same cross sectional area (original area determined graphically).

I could not determine the actual steel used for the rails but as they are used in an electrical circuit, I assumed electrical grade steel (The difference shouldn’t be that significant). Calculations are based on a per kilometre basis as substations seem to be about 2 kilometres apart (meaning that the current only has to travel half way to the next substation – 1 km). If the distance is different, then once again the numbers can be scaled accordingly. The current has to travel both ways, in the live rail and in one return rail.

Calculations were done assuming a frequency of 50 Hz, but it was simple to substitute 16.7 Hz in Mathcad, so alternate figures are provided.

I have assumed that the AC system is operated at the same RMS voltage as the DC system voltage. In practice the stress on the insulation will be greater as 750 volts AC has a peak voltage of well over 1000 volts.

All calculations were performed using standard formulae found in any electrical reference work and also available in the appropriate Wikipedia article.

DC losses

The losses under DC conditions consist only of

• Shunt leakage loses • Series resistive loses

The leakage losses at 750 volts are negligible (and in any case they will be the same under AC conditions). The resistance of our conductor rail is 17 milliohms per kilometre. The 2 rails therefore give a volt drop of 172 volts per kilometre. This is easily within the lower voltage limit of 500 volts.

AC losses

The loses under AC conditions consist of

• Shunt leakage loses • Series resistive loses • Shunt capacitive loses • Series inductive loses

Leakage loses as already noted are the same. At this voltage and with the separation of the rails, the capacitive loses only shunt a few milliamps and are, in this context, negligible.

The series inductance, on the other hand is not negligible and works out at 0.68 milliHenries per kilometre. For the two rails that gives a series reactance of 430 milliohms per kilometre (16.7 Hz: 144), or a volt drop of 2000 volts (16.7 Hz: 718). For a 50 Hz system the reactive volt drop alone prevents the required current from ever being drawn and is thus totally infeasible. For 16.7 Hz, the combined volt drop of the resistance and reactance is not a simple summation but works out at 738 volts. This is far too large to make such a system practicable and is thus also infeasible.

Even though the reactive volt drop on its own makes an AC system infeasible, I still calculated the effect that the skin effect would have on the series resistance. For the grade of steel assumed, the depth of current penetration at 50 Hz is just 0.15 millimetres (0.7 millimetres for 16.7 Hz). At 50 Hz, the resistance is 5.19 ohms per kilometre. At 16.7 Hz, it is a bit better at 1.11 ohms per kilometre. Since the resistive volt drop would become 30,000 volts and 12,400 volts respectively, we can safely conclude that skin effect alone would render AC operation of a third rail system impossible. .

One way that AC does allow you to mitigate the losses is where voltage is not a limiting factor as is the case with overhead systems. By raising the voltage you lower the current. Resistive and reactive loses fall, but also the smaller cables mean that the skin effect can be mitigated as well. This is not feasible with track level third rail systems. 62.188.100.5 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Please don't take this as undue critism but expressing the problem in terms of volt drop is not the best way of expressing the losses, because, in practice, the overall volt drop can never exceed the supply voltage. However, I fully understood the point that you were making and appreciate the time and effort that you put into it. It might have been better to summarise it in the form of series impedance (the shunt impedances, as you note, being negligible). Possibly in the form of (Remember, this is an assumed 5000 amp train located one kilometre from the sub station):

Maximum acceptable series impedance

    for 250 volt drop (i.e. to 500 volts): 0.05 ohms

Series resistance to DC supply: 0.033 ohms

Series impedance to 50 Hertz AC: 10.41 ohms

Series impedance to 16.7 Hertz AC: 4.48 ohms

Simply put, the series AC impedances are far too high for an AC third rail system to be practicable. In fact, to provide some context based on these numbers, whereas the substations spaced at 2 kilometre intervals are quite acceptable for a 750 volt DC third rail system, for a 16.7 Hz 750 volt AC system, the substations would have to be spaced just 22 metres apart for the volt drop to be just acceptable.

I just noticed an error in your calculations. Under the inductive loss, you calculated the 16.7 Hz impedance from the reactance and the DC resistance not the actual resistance (after skin effect is taken into account). This figure is thus invalid, but you got a better figure when you discussed skin effect. Maybe you hadn't noticed that you had given two numbers for the same loss. I B Wright (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Since we're doing all this original research here, perhaps I can point out that overhead electric cranes energized at 600 VAC 60 HZ routinely operate on runways that are thousands of feet long; so 22 metre spacing doesn't sound right. My former employer operated one overhead crane at 230 VAC on a runway that was nearly a quarter mile long (a little hard to scale in the Google Maps view) - admittedly that crane got kind of sluggish at the extreme ends of the rail.(Hey, and with AC rails all you need is a tapchanger and transformer on the car to compensate for the drop!) Maybe some rail guy has written a book that discusses why AC isn't used on third rails? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, kindly do the calculation and tell us where it is wrong. Using the information available in skin effect, it does seem to be, more or less, in the right ball park. Most overhead electric cranes that I have encountered don't take their power from the track but from dedicated power conductors which I presume use copper where the skin effect is much less marked (and if smaller than about 18 mm - absent). –LiveRail < Talk > —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your examples are not really relevant or illustrative of the issue. No overhead crane collects its power from its steel running rails (or any steel rail). First: they collect it from power conductors which are doubtless made from a non magnetic material where the skin depth is much greater than its dimensions. Second: their power requirements are very modest compared with a train. An overhead crane will draw a couple of tens of amps at most. Thus the example does not apply.

I did a quick calculation as a sanity check on 62.188.100.5's contribution. I don't know what the actual numbers that he or she used for the type of steel were, but available information tells me that 50 Hz AC current will penetrate not much more than a few tenths of a millimetre from the surface of a steel conductor (or indeed any magnetic conductor). No current flows at a depth greater than this. Accordingly, the solid steel rail electrically becomes the equivalent of a like shaped tube with walls a few tenths of a millimetre thick. This is a very significant reduction in cross sectional area. Although I cannot confirm the exact result my quick calculation shows that 62.188.100.5's figures are certainly of the right magnitude.

As far as I am concerned as long as the theory and formulae used for the calculations are citeable, then the numbers are useable in the article. This would be far from the first article to use calculations that do not come directly from a reference even though the theory and formulae do. As Scotty used to say, "Ye cannae change the laws of physics".

Power is volts multiplied by current. A transformer and a tap changer is not going to magically produce current that is prevented from flowing in the first place. I B Wright (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to move to theory. Everything works in theory. The 230 V crane I mentioned picked up current through inverted steel angles, supported on insulators along the runway beam; we had several cranes in that plant that used inverted angles, which are much cheaper and stronger than copper shapes for long runs. All this erudite theoretical discussion of skin effects isn't worth as much as one citation to a book. Sadly, I rifled through the electronic shelves of our on-line library yesterday and found nothing that discussed AC vs DC for third rails; this seems to be a long solved problem and our on-line library typically is more concerned about today's problems than explaining history. There was a hilarous rant in "New Scientist" October 1978 which Google Books turned up, on the very subject of third rail vs. overhead electrification, but it wasn't relevant to the AC/DC question. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, your crane, even if you do recall that it used steel angles is still nothing more than original research. It may well be that the current drawn did not give enough of a volt drop to cause any problems in operation, though I note that one crane that you mentioned got 'sluggish' when it was a just quarter of a mile (~400 metres) from the feed point. Could this be because the skin effect was providing more resistance than would be desired (just like the text books say)? Perhaps your employer should have invested in a DC crane, though he may have had a spot of bother getting the required transformer and rectifier past the bean counters for just one crane! You are quite right about citations but if you take a trip over to the skin effect article, you will find more citations than are required. –LiveRail < Talk > 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You claim to be a professional electrical engineer. If that is true, then I find it nothing short of astonishing that you have never encountered the skin effect. I find it even more incredible that you cannot find any reference to provide you with information on the subject. The existence of the effect (though not any calculations appertaining thereto) was taught in my high school physics class. Googling turns up plenty of material including this chapter from Electromagnetic Fields and Waves by Prof. Rafael Piestun ([3]) not to mention a handy calculator ([4]), though it does appear to be geared towards radio frequencies as the frequency has to be entered in Megahertz. It does provide further confirmation of the order of magnitude of the numbers given above. As for not being able to find references because your books cover modern problems rather than historical ones: in which year do you think that the laws of physics were repealed such that the skin effect magically went away? Incidentally, this skin effect is precisely the phenomenon that you were relying upon to erroneously demonstrate that only magnetic cookware could possibly work on an induction hob where the permeability of the iron or steel concentrates the induced currents at the surface of the pan. I B Wright (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Who, me? Where do I claim to be an engineer, professional, locomotive or boiler? No, I have never heard of the skin effect[5] - is this related to Page 3 girls? So you can't find a railway reference, either? Could the AC/DC choice revolve more around the motors in the rolling stock? The hilarious New Scientist article (mentioned above) had a long Wikipedia-style rant about the waste of money involved in parking all those transformer/rectifier sets at night. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"No, I have never heard of the skin effect". You have claimed frequently throughout Wikipedia to be an electrical engineer (usually to bolster your repetitive edit warring claiming superior knowledge to those you are warring with - but a claim many of us have had frequent cause to question). But even so, if you took the trouble to follow the links I posted above or even read the Wikipedia article on the subject, you might learn more than you currently know. Why you think railways are exempt from the laws of physics is a mystery. I B Wright (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wireless train power

Topic points to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonant_inductive_coupling which says that some experimentation has been done with buses, but only for recharging batteries. I assume for a long distance freight train (as an example) to use wireless power, there would have to be wireless power transmitters under most or all of the track. I also assume that they would have wireless power receivers running down the length of every car on the train, to provide as much power as possible. Cost and logistics aside, would this even be possible with our current technology? Would a train be able to receive enough power wirelessly that it would not need any batteries to operate? (though it would probably have some batteries for steep climbs) 184.166.6.102 (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this section needs to be re-written. User:LiveRail has stated above, and in the section Third Rail that DC systems can carry approximately 41% more power than an AC system. The reason for this is said to be Skin Effect. We now appear to have a conflict of statements, one saying that DC is 41% more efficient than AC, and then another saying that in the future, that we shall be high-frequency AC as part of an inductive coupling system. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the point and the discussion - again. The point about DC systems being able to carry 41% more power was based on the point that the AC peak voltage is 41% higher than a DC voltage that is the same as the RMS of the AC. The discussion above on the effects of the skin effect knocks that point into the long grass. The point about skin effect is that a railway using low voltage (i.e. <1000 volts) third rail distribution is not practical because the series resistance of the rails become unacceptably high. But, once again, part of your point above has moved away from third rail systems and is attempting to apply the arguments to a completely different technology. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You miss my point. If "skin effect" is related to frequency, then please explain how a high-frequency AC system can exist. Bhtpbank (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Skin effect depends on more than frequency. It also depends on the material a conductor is made from. For example, for a steel conductor, the skin depth is very small (around 0.3mm for 50 Hz system). However, if a copper conductor is used then the skin depth is around 16mm for the same frequency. The large difference comes about because steel is magnetic and it is that characteristic that forces the current more closely to the surface. I don't understand what you mean by a 'high frequency AC system', but if you mean 50 Hz systems (as opposed to 16.7 Hz), then these are usually operated at high voltage using a copper contact wire. THe high voltage means a smaller current so the wire is invariably smaller in radius than the skin depth so its effects in such systems are negligible. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Electricity generation: Central power plant vs. diesel-electric locomotive

It now reads: "Central station electricity can OFTEN be generated with higher efficiency than a mobile engine/generator." I added OFTEN since there are cases where the original claim isn't so. But more than a footnote (which I added) is needed. The problem with the diesel is that it spends about 40% of it's time idling and when it's operating, about 90% of its time is in the non-nominal regime at lower efficiency. But one can improve diesel design and operation to allow it to be easily restarted, which would better enable it to "pulse and glide" similar to Energy-efficient driving. Then it would most of the time operate in the nominal regime. Even so it would be heavier, not be able to overload its traction motors, and couldn't use regenerative braking. I'm using figures collected in the USSR. Also there are Soviet studies regarding the maximizing of return on investment in electrification. But they neglected the case improvement of the diesel as I suggest above.

But back to the Central station power. Which generators are chargeable to traction loads? You can't just say the new generators since if electric power consumption drops overall, it would be the old generators that would get the load. And you can't say existing hydro, since it would be all used even if there were no traction loads. There are a lot of things to discuss on this topic and I'm not sure if anyone has done it in detail.David S. Lawyer 08:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is reasonable to compare central electricity generation with local generation within a diesel locomotive, but the discussion should acknowledge qualitative factors besides heat rate. Diesel locomotives generally burn only diesel fuel (and some biodiesel) but most countries generate very little electricity from petroleum because there are so many cheaper and cleaner alternatives. Coal and natural gas can be (and have been) fuels for mobile prime movers but there's really only one practical way to apply solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and nuclear power to modern transportation and that's with electricity generated elsewhere than on the vehicle. (Sailing ships don't seem likely to come back in commercial shipping, and civilian nuclear ships don't seem likely either). And none emit any CO2, another qualitative distinction that should be acknowledged in any comparison between diesel and electric traction. Karn (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Electrification reduces energy costs by a large amount. Emissions and noise may be considerations now, but not the 1920s when suburban electrification started. It was motivated simply a large reduction in operating and maitenance costs. Electric motors are cheap by comparison, and may be easily replaced in an an hour or so. That's not the case with steam or diesel. A 1700kW diesel will consume 400L/hr of fuel, or about $400US/hr. Assuming electricity is purchased (in bulk) at 4c/kWhr then the loco consumes $68/hr in energy.220.245.43.121 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Conversion from 16 2/3 Hz to 16.7 Hz

Whoever is reverting my edits to this section, please stop and read the references. I had also linked to the Wikipedia article 15 kV AC railway electrification which already contained a discussion of the change and the reasons for it. The reference is in German but Google Translate works. What follows is my understanding of that reference.

I consider it important to state that the new frequency is no longer synchronous with 1/3 of the 50 Hz grid frequency. This was to solve overheating problems with certain rotary converter machines. They're similar to synchronous induction motor/generators and that terminology may have caused the confusion. In such a machine, rotor windings are energized through slip rings. To rotate synchronously with the stator field, the rotor currents have to be DC, with the current in each pole a sinusoidal function of the (fixed) phase angle between the 16.7 Hz traction power and 1/3 of the grid frequency. Depending on this phase angle, one pole could thus carry the lion's share of the current and overheat. By decoupling the traction frequency from exactly 1/3 of the grid, the rotor currents become very low frequency 3-phase AC. The current in each phase of the rotor winding now slowly varies sinusoidally, on the order of 1 cycle in 30 seconds, but is quick enough to distribute the heating through all three rotor poles and avoid the concentrated pole heating that occurred with exact synchronous operation. Karn (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your edits were being reverted because you had failed to provide the all important reference. Referring to material contained in another article is not permitted (Another Wikipedia article is not acceptable as a reference). References have to be in line immediately following the claim they are supporting. I note that some other editor eventually provided the reference. Making a comment in the edit summary of, "Read the damn reference" is unhelpful because the last time your edit was reverted, there was no damn reference. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs links to historical development

May have been removed (why?) as can no longer find mention of Siemens. - Rod57 (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Charles_Joseph_Van_Depoele#Electric_railways seems worth mentioning but there must be much more. - Rod57 (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Railway electrification system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120824224826/http://www.ge-flexibility.com:80/solutions/flexefficiency-50-combined-cycle-power-plant/index.html to http://www.ge-flexibility.com/solutions/flexefficiency-50-combined-cycle-power-plant/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Paris rubber-tyred metro electrification system incorrectly described

The page contains :

A few lines of the Paris Métro in France operate on a four-rail power scheme because they run on rubber tyres which run on a pair of narrow roadways made of steel and, in some places, concrete. Since the tyres do not conduct the return current, the two guide rails provided outside the running 'roadways' double up as conductor rails, so at least electrically it is a four-rail scheme. One of the guide rails is bonded to the return conventional running rails situated inside the roadway so a single polarity supply is required. The trains are designed to operate from either polarity of supply, because some lines use reversing loops at one end, causing the train to be reversed during every complete journey.[8] The loop was originally provided to save the original steam locomotives having to 'run around' the rest of the train saving much time. Today, the driver does not have to change ends at termini provided with such a loop, but the time saving is not so significant as it takes almost as long to drive round the loop as it does to change ends. Many of the original loops have been lost as lines were extended.

The bogie of an MP 05, showing the flanged steel wheel inside the rubber tired one, as well as the vertical contact shoe on top of the steel rail.

This information is factually incorrect. I use as source of information my professional knowledge and the reference book Robert, Jean (1983). Notre Métro (2nd ed.). pp. 218–219.

Rubber-tyred metro system track in Paris consists of a standard plain track with a pair of running rails, a pair of narrow roadways, and lateral guide rails. Normally the train runs on its rubber tyres on the narrow roadways, but in case of a deflated tyre the flanged steel wheel which is located behind the rubber-tyred wheel comes in contact with the running rails. The flanged steel wheels also guides the train in turnouts, which is why the flanges of these wheels are particularly high.

From the electrical point of view, both lateral guide rails are connected to the positive pole of the 750 V DC power supply and both running rails are connected to the negative pole. The bogies are equipped with a pair of lateral shoegear in contact with th lateral guide rails for the positive pole, and a pair of vertical shoegear in contact with the running rails. The latter are extremely important : as in normal conditions no steel wheel is in contact with the running rails, these vertical negative shoegear provides grounding of the train, carry the return traction current and short-circuit the track circuits for train detection. As a failure in these shoegear could lead to unacceptable hazards, special detectors are located on the rubber-tyred lines to detect defaults in these shoegear.

SteF81 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2016 (CET)

The picture on the right, pasted from the MP 05 page, shows the vertical shoegear (bottom right corner of the image). Every bogie has a pair of vertical shoegear, but not every bogie has lateral shoegear, the one pictured doesn't.

@SteF81: I had already corrected that description before reading your post here. After observing the bogies of the Montreal Metro on the stopped train at the opposite platform while waiting for my next train, I figured out the system. By the way "shoegear = contact shoe. Please read my correction at Railway electrification system#Fourth rail and leave your comments, if needed, here as a continuation of this conversation. Peter Horn User talk 13:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@SteF81: Please lease review my edit on Railway electrification system#Fourth rail Peter Horn User talk 22:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@SteF81: please lease review this description of rubber tyred systems. Peter Horn User talk 18:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sapporo Municipal Subway

5000 series central rail-guided rubber-tyred rolling stock operated by Sapporo City Transportation Bureau, Japan, and built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries Rolling Stock Company.

How does the system on the Sapporo Municipal Subway work? Peter Horn User talk 01:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No answer yet. Peter Horn User talk 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

'@Elektrik Fanne: Any idea?

London fourth rail

Railway electrification system#Fourth rail Just as the Paris system was incorrectly described so also the London system may be incorrectly described as well. Peter Horn User talk 23:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

On tracks that London Underground share with National Rail third-rail stock (the Bakerloo and District lines both have such sections), the centre rail is connected to the running rails, allowing both types of train to operate, at a compromise voltage of 660 V. Underground trains pass from one section to the other at speed; lineside electrical connections and resistances separate the two types of supply. These routes were originally solely electrified on the four-rail system by the LNWR before National Rail trains were rewired to their standard three-rail system to simplify rolling stock use.

Fourth-rail trains occasionally operate on the National third-rail system. To do so, the centre-rail shoes are bonded to the wheels. This bonding must be removed before operating again on fourth-rail tracks, to avoid creating a short-circuit.

To me this sounds as spurious as the original description of the Paris system. The tube trains simply take the current from the fourth rail between the running rails and the National Rail third-rail stock take the current from the third rail. In both cases the running rails are the negative return which in turn is grounded. That bonding to the wheels bit sounds like complicated, mechanically impossible, "hocus pocus" to me. Peter Horn User talk 01:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I added a link to "Hocus pocus (magic)" Peter Horn User talk 02:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

London Underground is a 630 V system. Voltage is split using resistors (120 ohm & 240 ohm) to give a 420/210 voltage split between the third rail (+420 V) and the fourth rail (-210 V). The wheels do not carry return current. Return current is via shoegear to the 4th rail. Where dual running with Network Rail, the fourth rail is bonded to the running rails. The system is not deliberately grounded in order to avoid corrosion from dc current. North of Harrow & Wealdstone, the fourth rail is still present in order to keep the resistance within the settings of the dc circuit breakers at the substations, and to keep the voltage within limits. KirksKeyKard (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@KirksKeyKard: Feel free to correct the section Railway electrification system#Fourth rail according to the description that you give here and clear things up once for all time. Peter Horn User talk 20:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@SteF81: Please check the London 4th rail text. Peter Horn User talk 03:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@KirksKeyKard: I have added links to the quotation. "Fourth-rail trains occasionally operate on the National third-rail system. To do so, the centre-rail shoes are bonded to the wheels. This bonding must be removed (disconnected?) before operating again on fourth-rail tracks, to avoid creating a short-circuit". Would this disconnection not be accomplished with the flip of a switch? Peter Horn User talk 15:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The negative return current from the train back to the substation is made by a connection from the trains propulsion system to the shoegear associated with the fourth rail. This connection is permanent and cannot be disconnected or "accomplished with the flip of a switch". Thus LUL trains can only operate on the national 3rd rail system when a 4th rail is present. In these areas, the 4th rail is permanently connected to the running rails by bonds at regular intervals. There is no short-circuit. What happens is that the normal split of the voltage (i.e. +420/-210) is changed such that the train sees the full system voltage of the national 3rd rail system. Due to limitations on the train, primarily the insulation of the motors, LUL trains are restricted to areas where the voltage does not exceed 660 Volts. The Euston-Watford line is a nominal 650 V system, so that works. The line between Putney and Wimbledon is 660 V, so that also works. As LUL replaces older stock with new stock, the intent is to increase the voltage from 630 V to 750 V with a split of +500/-250 volts.

Like everything in life: things are a little more complicated than that. LUL trains can operate on higher than 660 volts. However, the chosen voltage of shared lines is not because of any limitation. LUL trains are able to operate on 750 volt National Rail 3-rail lines (see post below). The use of 660(ish) volts on the shared systems is nothing whatsoever to do with the insulation ratings of either types of train, but is just a legacy from when all Outer London 3-rail lines on Southern Region (as was) were 660 volts. This was the case up to around 12 or so years ago when the opportunity was taken, with the replacement of Mercury Arc rectification with solid state, to upgrade these suburban lines (approximately very roughly or thereabouts inside the M25) to 750 volts to match the rest of the system. --Elektrik Fanne 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This running on purely 3-rail National Rail lines is not a normal movement. However, such movements are (very) occasionally required. To perform such a movement, the negative return has to be bonded to the wheels. This is not a flip of a switch, but requires the deliberate addition of a bonding strap to all the motor car bogies of the train. Although they could be left in place for operation over 660 volt shared 3/4-rail lines, they must be removed before the train can be allowed to run onto LUL 630 volt 4-rail lines. For short runs, it is usually easier to haul the train with a diesel loco and a match wagon. --Elektrik Fanne 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: Interesting. By all means revise the fourth rail section according to the info you have provided here above. Peter Horn User talk 14:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I would love to. However, having read all this in the past somewhere, I am not familiar enough with the subject, and am unable to find currently available sources beyond an unacceptable WP:FANSITE. --Elektrik Fanne 18:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: So where does your knowledge of this subject come from? You sound like a train-spotter rather than someone who actually works int he industry and actually does know how these systems work. What is the source for your information?? KirksKeyKard (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am an electrical engineer. When I started writing my post, I had assumed (or recollected) that the voltage was a compromise to encompass the various upper and lower limits. This is the way it would (or should) be done. The limits were, helpfully, in the article (though some extrapolation was required). However, while searching on line, I discovered that the actual voltage used was in fact purely a legacy hangover and nothing more. Presumably retention of the original voltage avoided the expense of replacing the sub stations on the affected lines and also the cost of requalifying the LUL stock. --Elektrik Fanne 14:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Create a new section

@Elektrik Fanne: Hello Fanne
Re the electrification of rubber-tyred metros. Don't just delete the material because it doesn't "fit" in the "cubby-hole". You could have created an additional section instead, as I did. Peter Horn User talk 23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: I deleted it rather than preserve it because none of it was referenced. I would have deleted it again for that exact reason, but as the point has been raised, I noticed that hardly any of the rest of the article is referenced. I doubt I would be popular if I deleted all the unreferenced material as is my right. --Elektrik Fanne 14:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elektrik Fanne: I found the following reference: De la centrale électrique au rail de traction but for some strange reason it only opens up as intended on the French Wiki Peter Horn User talk 04:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoopee, that link opens up after all. The first paragraph is the key. Peter Horn User talk 04:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: Excelent work. One small point: we don't put it in 'external links' if it is already in-line cited in the article text (WP:ELNO). --Elektrik Fanne 08:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)